|
Bent's TSM (e.g. J.Chem.Ed.,40(1963)446,523) is a qualitative interpretation of the quantitative Kimball model. In a qualitative model falsification is not possible.
With a quantitative model, hypotheses like TSM can be tested. I argue entirely within the quantitative model of the "free cloud approximation" of Kimball. "Free cloud" means, the clouds get their size and go where they must according to their quantum mechanical kinetic energy, confined by the electrostatic interactions between clouds, clouds and nuclei, and nuclei-nuclei, which define the molecular structure. The requirement of "tangent clouds" is foreign to Kimball's model. Either they are tangent, if the minimization of the correct energy terms lead to this, or they are not touching, if this comes out of the minimized energy AND the absence of any forces to move them - the equilibrium condition. Any additional constraint will lead to a destabilization of the computed molecule and to a violation of the Hellmann-Feynman theorem, i.e. the vectorsum of all the forces any nucleus of the (stationary - vibrationless) molecule is exposed to will not vanish. That means: TSM is Bent's not Kimball's model (G.F.Neumark's thesis, loc.cit p.30: "The outer clouds touch the central one, but not necessarily each other."). Because Bent has no quantitative boundary, given by the energy minimum and the equilibrium of forces in Kimball's model, he had to introduce the tangency requirement in order to obtain a metric for the cloud skeleton. This is an unphysical and unchemical assumption to keep an otherwise unstable model of a molecule together - witchcraft, not science! For detailed study continue to Springs & bolts and Ethene I still remember, how furious I became while reading Bent's first paper. My students and myself had already been studying Kimball's quantitative model for more than a year, the first publication had been drafted, and now this! Bent has been the first gravedigger *) of Kimballs model by corrupting it before the scientific discourse about its merits had taken place. The qualitative interpretation, with arbitrary features added, withdrew Kimballs model from a serious evaluation process as scientific object, which, therefore, has never happened! This paved the way to the styrofoam, plastilline and artwork "Kimball" or "Kugelwolken" varieties which still adorne the lecture halls of so called science teachers. It has not gotten through to them that this has no scientific nor educational value whatever.- This sad history has disgusted me so much, that I needed more than 50 years to present here a mouthful of our early endeavor (partially from three drafts of unpublished work 1961-64) - for your amusement! *) On the same footing was the "Chemical Bond Approach Committee", Chemistry Vol.I (2nd ed.) 1960, Editor in Chief L.E.Strong. Chapters IV and VI had so many qualitative and quantitative errors that the strong arm of George Pimentel, entering the "CHEM study" program, was welcome to stop the nonsense! |